issue40

wzggzwUID: 138370

40"Scholars and researchers should not be concerned with whether their work makes a contribution to the larger society. It is more important that they pursue their individual interests, however unusual or idiosyncratic those interests may seem."
刚才发的好像打不开，再发一遍，兄弟姐妹们提点建议，3x

The title statement holds the proposition that scholars and researchers should be free to pursue their individual interest, no matter how unusual or idiosyncratic. In my view, I greatly agree with the speaker in that the standpoint is inspiring, democratic and beneficial to prompt the formation of active researching environment.

Admittedly, every corner of the whole world changed greatly compared with before, becomes more and more beautiful. Undoubtedly, it is justifiable for us to owe most of the achievements to various great enterprises our scholars and researchers all along have been engaged with. At the same time, as people more and more rely on high technology, gradually, people unfairly impose heavy burden on our scholars and researchers, and take it for granted that what they have done should justifiably make contribution to the whole society, and even evaluate a researcher or scholar by the principle of what benefit he/she have do to the public.

At the first place, imposing our ideas upon others contradicts seriously with the aim of democracy society. It is too unfair to them, as part of the society, who are the same with us apart from possessing the specialized knowledge, that striving for societal prosperity at the expanse of many scholars’ or researchers’ personal interests. They have the right of choosing the living style, certainly within the laws, including their individual researching interests. I don’t mean that our scholars and researchers bear little mission for the societal development. In fact, it is often easy to deal with the enterprise their interests lie in, which goes in favor of the larger society. Nevertheless, the circumstance deserving our more attention is one, within which the researches and studies performed by scholars and researchers seemingly have no relationship with any aspect of the society. Even if in the name of construction of society, there is no reason for us to impose our ideas and plans upon these scholars and researchers, and to change their directions for the well-being of the public. For them, what they are doing is just their favorite just like a tourist is wild about traveling everywhere, obviously the latter have no contributions to society. Why can we endure most tourists, but can not understand our researchers’ interests for certain field?

Additionally, different scholars or researchers have their own unique background and excels. Some of them have been engaged in some certain field for a long period and have many informed perception on some issues, however, abandoning the original one and exploiting another field will result in the great waste of specialists. Furthermore, researchers excel in one field are not sure to achieve good result in another field.

In the final analysis, subtle or intense influences of some researches, unusual and idiosyncratic, are not perceived by us immediately, and only bring about influences in a long term. Also there are some fields such as culture, philosophy, religion, etc., the works of them appear to be of little use. Is it necessary for us to ask them to change their careers? Nevertheless, consider them deeply, they all play great important role in keeping stabilization, understanding ourselves, and recognizing the world. In this sense, according to their own interests, developing related study and research is enlightened choice not only for respecting freedom but also for the development in a long term.

To sum up, whether their works make contribution to society or not can not be taken as the principle for evaluating one scholar or research, and also can not be asserted by us summarily. Furthermore, scholars and researchers should be largely encouraged, but not prevented, to develop their own academic interests within reasonable limits.

果酱面包UID: 142490

我看一篇文章会先看论点，然后再看论证，所以我先扫了你的过度词，我觉得这样写的危险很大。你开头先陈述你的观点，而且观点很明确，接下来应该写出最强有力的分论点支持你的观点，但是却出现admittedly，这是不好的，我明白你说的意思，但我觉得这好像是属于我们的思维，可能在老美看来，这篇文章的作者很不自信。而且在仅仅陈述一个观点之后又有一个admittedly，这让人觉得你很没有底气。尽管我知道实际上你可能是想让逻辑更严谨。你想先说我们应该为社会作贡献，我觉得可以放在第一个分论点中作让步，也可以放到最后说，但是不能在最开头独立成段。虽然这种写法很俗，但是这就是他们的思维方式，如果想冒险，可能会跌得很惨，当然也可能会成功，可是值不值得我就不知道了
这仅仅是我的一些个人看法，请作参考把

wzggzwUID: 138370

第二段其实没什么让步的意思，只是在阐述一个普遍现象，我现在觉得用admittedly也不合适
改成Practically吧
admittedly放在一开始论证的时候确实不好，谢谢指正

wzggzwUID: 138370

第二段也不是说我们要为社会做贡献，而是说人们过于让学者、研究者过了贡献而去研究这种不公平做法。

imongUID: 140258

第二段作让步也不是说不可以，但是要求前后的语气语境都要协调照顾得很好，不是太容易
也就是说，可以这样做；要做好，难
怕做砸，改

果酱参与讨论好积极啊，要让paisley多多奖励（paisley你该不会反对吧？）

果酱面包UID: 142490

不好意思我没有看全你的文章，真抱歉！
呵呵，谢谢imong 我也经常让大家帮忙呀！

wzggzwUID: 138370

谢谢你们，你们都很热心！

happywheneverUID: 142715

我觉得文章好像过于强调以自己的口气来写

wzggzwUID: 138370

什么意思？不是很明白？
因为我的观点就是在袒护scholar and researcher，也是在支持statement
文章中有些地方用到our researchers或者our scholar之类的词也不为过吧？